The Ground Zero Mosque Islamic Gay Bar?

This is awesome. Indescribably awesome. I am literally sitting here chuckling because it’s so perfect.

How perfect is it? And, since you were too lazy to click on the link, what is it? Greg Gutfeld, a prominent conservative figure, is building a Muslim gay bar right next to the Ground Zero mosque. He believes that they have the right to build a mosque in the position of their choosing, but in the spirit of America he also has the ability to build an Islamic gay bar where he wants as well in order to open a anti-homophobia dialogue.

He’s quite serious as well. Apparently he’s talked to investors and this is actually going to happen. Worst case scenario this is forced to not happen, for one reason or another, and hypocrisy is exposed. Best case scenario there’s a Muslim gay bar right next to the Ground Zero mosque.

One final thought – people are going to oppose this. Americans. Non-Muslims. They’re going to see it as inflammatory and unnecessary. The same sort of things that Republicans said about the Ground Zero mosque. My thinking is that if one of these ideas is shut down by the government or whatever then they both should be. The hypocrisy of shutting down just one of them would be astounding and very anti-American. Honestly, though, neither of them should be shut down. Both have every right to exist. I’m just glad that Gutfeld is actually getting out the statement that he’s trying to make.

Spread this sort of thing around, too. Make this a news story. It’s only effective if people know about it.

Related

So very perfect. I’m mixed on the mosque itself* but this puts things into exactly the right perspective. In other words, “that’s what you get.”

* The one side of me struggling to make a case about freedom and the other bringing up how cities basically control what gets put up through zoning and the like, and how lesser things (i.e., a new Wal*Mart) have been stopped by public outcry.

Seriously Aptronym? Protesting a Wal*Mart to protect Mom and Pop stores (or stores that pay their employees) could not be further that people who fear difference protesting a leagal building by a minority. The essence of American freedom is safety even when you are not the majority, it is being questioned by those who fight to stop the Mosque.

(I’m not really mad at you, you are thinking about the issue and I respect that, I just get really mad at these idiots protesting the mosque)

The problem is not that it’s a mosque in New York; the problem is that it’s a mosque remarkably close to Ground Zero. For many people that hits too close to the bone. It’s hard to come up with a similar example because nothing on this scale has happened in the US before. In theory, they should build their mosque wherever they want, but in practice, they’re intentionally or inadvertently (probably the latter) insulting a lot of people who had to live through 9/11 and see Islam at its worst. No amount of talk that it’s a symbol of peace or a symbol of unity is going to change that. Its construction will upset a lot of people.

Whether or not it should be built is a separate matter. Honestly, in situations like these, I’d simply go by existing law. If the city of New York is allowed to stop the construction of the mosque on the grounds of public outcry or simple governmental whim, then it will have to make the decision whether or not to do so. If the policy is to allow construction across the board provided that all requirements are met, then it should do so. It’s as simple as that, and ultimately, even if there is legal framework or precedent to deny the request, it’s up to the people of New York what they want built in their city. (More specifically, it’s up to the government of New York, but the principle’s the same.) I have no say in the matter, nor should I, no matter how much I oppose the mosque’s construction. In short, play it by the book.

As for the Wal*Mart example, I realize that the match isn’t perfect, largely because economics plays a factor. What the issue boils down to is in which spheres a people are allowed to exercise control over which buildings are erected. The case against Wal*Mart can be argued with numbers and statistics, but it is ultimately subjective: all that matters is which outcome you favor, whom you can win to your cause, and whether you have the legal ability to influence what happens. The case against the mosque is, at it’s root, the same thing, except concerning the community’s general will as opposed to its economic well-being. The main difference is that results of one can be estimated and quantified, whereas the results of the other stem solely from the people’s satisfaction with the outcome (unless the mosque incites violence, which seems unlikely). So, with all this said, here’s my question: do the people of a town or city hold final sway over buildings built within the town or city? If so, under what conditions? (For what it’s worth, I’d argue that the status of Wal*Mart as an economic entity makes it vulnerable to consumer choice after its construction, making its initial construction far less important than its continued profitability. As there’s no way to drive a mosque out of business, the question of its construction becomes all the more important to the community.)

To return to the gay bar (rhetorically speaking), if the city has no right to stop the construction of the mosque or chooses not to, I think that the gay bar sends exactly the right message. If the builders of the mosque are offended, then it’s a poetic response; even if they took into account the effect on others when they decided to build the mosque, the bar will serve as a reminder that actions have consequences that affect other people. It’s a valuable lesson, and even if they know it, the ground that they’re treading merits further reminder. And even if they’re not offended, the jihadists will be, which serves an even more important purpose. I can see no way in which an Islamic fundamentalist wouldn’t see this as a sacrilege, which means that the jihadists cannot lay claim to this mosque as a symbol of conquest. Even if the mosque does represent moderate Islam, it would also hold symbolic meaning for the jihadists; the bar takes that away from them, which is the most important part.

In any case, thanks for the note. You’re right in that I’m trying to think around an issue that I’m fundamentally not in a position to decide on. Sorry about the lengthy post, and sorry for any goalpost-moving that took place. My first post wasn’t nearly comprehensive, and it was more emotional than logical; this one outlines my view more accurately.